Insights Search

V&E lawyers will discuss a potential wave of DEI and ESG investigations, enforcement actions, and lawsuits from the federal government, state attorneys general, and class action lawyers.

On March 19, 2025, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued two technical assistance documents (the “DEI Guidance”) addressing the application of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) to employers’ diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) policies and practices.

On February 26, 2025, the Supreme Court and all three counsel appearing before it in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, appeared to walk away in “radical agreement” — as noted by Justice Neil Gorsuch — that a majority-group plaintiff is not required to proffer more evidence of discrimination than a non-majority-group plaintiff in order to state a prima facie claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

On February 21, 2025, a federal judge issued a nationwide preliminary injunction that partially prevents the Trump administration from enforcing its executive orders on diversity, equity and inclusion (“DEI”).

On January 21, 2025, President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” (the “Executive Order”), which significantly impacts not only requirements applicable to federal government contractors and subcontractors, but also could lead to private sector investigations or enforcement actions concerning Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (“DEI”) initiatives — particularly those maintained by larger companies (whether privately held or publicly listed), regardless of whether they contract or subcontract with the government.

On April 17, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court in Muldrow v. St. Louis held that an employee who claimed she was involuntarily transferred to another position because of her sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) needed only to show that the transfer caused “some harm respecting an identifiable term or condition of employment”

On February 8, 2024, in its Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that a whistleblower pursuing a claim for retaliation under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”) does not need to show that the employer acted with “retaliatory intent.”

It takes two to tango, but the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) reaffirmed that it might only take one to engage in protected concerted activity.

Addressing what it deemed an “interpretive incongruity,” on August 18, 2023, the Fifth Circuit shifted nearly 30 years of Title VII disparate treatment precedent in Hamilton et al. v. Dallas County.

As many employers are likely aware, Title VII makes it illegal for covered employers to discriminate against employees and applicants based on certain protected characteristics, including sincerely held religious beliefs.